Author Topic: Obama making good on his promise to destroy jobs and the coal industry.  (Read 6834 times)

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22731
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
One is a result of a failed business model and poor business practices. 

The other is a result of purposeful govt meddling and regulation by fiat. 

Hope you can realize the difference.   

I understand the difference.  But the fact remains that they both have lost their jobs.   I don't support people losing regardless of the reasons, just the same as i would hope you would. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39695
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Yes you do support the coal people losing their jobs.  you already said so.   

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22731
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Yes you do support the coal people losing their jobs.  you already said so.   
::)

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7365
  • TND
As much as I can't stand Oz I usually respect his opinions. This isn't one of those times. The double standard he is applying here doesn't fly.

You don't like the coal industry so it should die--- in spite of the fact people will be put out of work.

You don't have a problem with GM-- therefore the government bail out was justified because people got to keep their jobs.

Regardless of your distaste for coal and the double standard you are applying-- the point is this: The government shouldn't be allowed to pick winners and losers like this. The free market should determine winners and losers, not some hack politician, environmental whack job, union fat car or bean counting bureaucrat.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22731
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Yeah but George I still like ye.   :D

It's not a matter or of like or dislike when it comes to the coal industry.  Coal was necessary up to 30 years ago.  It isn't needed now.

Which makes me wonder which part of a 20 to 30 year phase out and "I don't know what Obama is doing is best" don't you understand?  

Or for that matter what part of "I am not defending the bail out" don't you understand.  I would bet no matter what what president or congress was present that bail would have happened.  (again, I am not defending it).  It's just reality.

When people lose jobs it's terrible no matter what the reason. Whether it's because someone what's to uphold some principle (gov shouldn't be allowed to pick winners or losers) or because someone thinks one system is obsolete and harmful.  A conversion to nuclear from coal can be done with few jobs lost.  

Government has to be involved in some things regarding business.  If not, big business left to run 100% unregulated spells disaster.  How much is up for debate.  

In any event Coal must go!

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39695
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Get ready for electricity prices to “necessarily skyrocket”
Hotair ^ | June 12, 2011 | Ed Morrissey


________________________ ________________________ _________



Have you had a lot of fun watching the price of gasoline shoot out of sight this year at the pump? That will be just the appetizer. Thanks to new regulations from the Obama administration, power companies will shut down a significant number of coal-fired plants by 2014, and without any other reliable sources of mass-produced electricity, consumers will see their bills go up as much as 60% (via Instapundit and Newsalert):

It’s the EPA gift that keeps on … taking.

On the other hand, we can consider this a rarity an Obama promise kept:

Even without cap-and-trade — or perhaps more accurately, even with a backdoor carbon tax through regulatory adventurism — Obama kept his promise to have electricity rates skyrocketing, and putting the burden on consumers, business, and taxpayers. Who said that every Obama promise comes with an expiration date?


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39695
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Consumers' electric bills likely to spike as coal plants close
As stricter environmental regulations approach, some power generators are choosing to shutter their coal-fired plants.

    Share281(64)

Consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 65 percent in the next few years. (Handout)

By Julie Wernau, Tribune reporter
June 11, 2011

Consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 60 percent in the next few years.

The reason: Pending environmental regulations will make coal-fired generating plants, which produce about half the nation's electricity, more expensive to operate. Many are expected to be shuttered.

Related

GRAPHIC: Graphic: More coal plant shutting down in the future
Topics
Coal
Chicago
Illinois
See more topics »

The increases are expected to begin to appear in 2014, and policymakers already are scrambling to find cheap and reliable alternative power sources. If they are unsuccessful, consumers can expect further increases as more expensive forms of generation take on a greater share of the electricity load.

"Each generator will have to decide for itself whether the investment required to meet environmental requirements can be justified based on its projection of market prices and the cost of its capital. In any case, those costs will be passed through to consumers," said Mark Pruitt, director of the Illinois Power Agency, which procures electricity for Illinois.

American Electric Power, one of the country's largest coal-burning electricity generators, said Thursday it will retire nearly a quarter of its coal-fueled generating capacity and that it will spend up to $8 billion to retrofit remaining units to meet regulations that start taking effect in 2014. Those moves will have an impact.

"The sudden increase in electricity rates and impacts on state economies will be significant at a time when people and states are still struggling,'' AEP Chairman and CEO Michael G. Morris said.

Exactly how much bills will go up is unclear.

What analysts know is that a portion of ComEd bills that pays electricity generators to reserve a portion of their power three years into the future will increase more than fourfold. That would translate into increases of $107 to $178 a year for an average residential customer in ComEd's territory, starting in 2014, according to calculations by Chris Thomas, policy director for consumer advocacy group Citizens Utility Board.

In 2014 those so-called capacity costs are expected to add approximately $2.7 million over the previous year to electricity bills in Chicago Public Schools, $3.3 million for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District and $5.4 million to the city of Chicago, according to an analysis by Tenaska, a Nebraska-based power development company that wants to develop a coal-fed power plant in central Illinois that would meet stringent regulations because it would capture and sequester emissions.

Coal-fired plants historically have been one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity, but operating costs are expected to increase significantly because of upgrades needed on older plants to meet new environmental regulations. The Illinois Power Agency estimates that by 2017 the energy portion of bills could jump 65 percent from today's rates.

Coal plants that account for roughly a fifth of Illinois' electricity generation could exit the market as a result of the new emissions rules, the Illinois Power Agency told state legislators in a memo last month.

More than 8,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation capacity has been retired in the U.S. since 2005, according to data from industrial software company Ventyx. Generators have announced they plan to retire another 21,000 megawatts in the near future, and some industry consultant studies estimate 60,000 megawatts of power, enough for 60 million homes, will be taken offline by 2017.

One example of the trend is Dominion Resources' recent announcement that by 2014 it will close State Line Power Station, an outmoded coal-fired plant sandwiched between Lake Michigan and the Chicago Skyway at the Illinois-Indiana border.

The news comes as consumer advocacy groups are fighting a parade of utility rate hikes, along with legislation that could add an extra 2.5 percent to ComEd bills each year for at least the next three years. ComEd customers paid 30 percent more for their electricity in 2009 than 10 years earlier. ComEd, a unit of Chicago-based Exelon Corp., serves 3.8 million customers across northern Illinois, or 70 percent of the state's population.

While coal plant operators have years to plan for new regulations, the first glimpse into future pricing came May 13. That's when the PJM Interconnection, a regional transmission system that oversees the electric grid for 54 million customers in 13 states, including the ComEd region of Illinois, held its annual auction for future power needs. The auction locks in supplies of electricity three years in advance to prevent massive power outages.

PJM chooses the lowest-cost blend of power that can meet demand expected during peak hours — the hottest days of the year when air conditioners are blasting.

In return for that commitment, utilities pay auction winners a "capacity payment," which is determined based on the cost of the supply mix. Consumers pay these costs on electricity bills as part of an "electricity supply charge" that makes up about two-thirds of the bill. The payments are in addition to what generators receive for the energy they sell.

Figuring in additional costs of scrubbers and other environmental upgrades, the coal-fired plant operators bid too high and found themselves out of a job.

"The surprise was probably in the fact that (the bids) went up so quickly in just the one-year time frame," said Travis Miller, associate director for utilities research at Chicago-based Morningstar.

Overall, enough electricity to power about 6.8 million homes dropped out of the auction compared with last year. This means the price consumers pay to ComEd to reserve that electricity will go up because power that costs more to generate, such as gas-fired peaker plants, will be tapped sooner.

Not all coal-fired power plants in service will need to install emission-control equipment.

As of May 2010, nearly half of the 310 gigawatts of coal-fired generating capacity in the U.S. had already installed the necessary scrubbers and more were permitted or under construction, according to an analysis by ICF International, a global consultancy.

Environmentalists say the new regulations will protect Americans from airborne mercury, arsenic, dioxin, acid gases and deadly particulates from coal-burning power plants. How companies choose to meet those standards — whether by installing emission controls or shutting down — is a business decision, said Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.

One company that expects to benefit from the changes is Chicago-based Exelon Corp., which has a large fleet of nuclear power plants that have low emissions and are cheap to run compared with coal plants.

"The upside to Exelon is unmistakable," CEO John Rowe said last year. "Every $50 per megawatt-day as a change in capacity prices, translates to almost $350 million of additional capacity revenue for Exelon in 2014 and subsequent years."

Rowe said energy prices are also expected to rise if coal plants are retired and replaced with other energy sources, like natural gas. "These changes add up quickly," he said. "A $5 per megawatt-hour increase in energy prices would be $700 million to $800 million of incremental annual revenue to Exelon on an open basis. We expect that at least some of that upside will be realized in the next two to four years."

Meanwhile, legislators are working on a variety of possible alternatives to offset the loss of cheap coal power. One of the boldest ideas is allowing the Illinois Power Agency be able to procure energy efficiency — essentially paying businesses to reduce energy consumption.

A 2009 report prepared for ComEd by energy and environmental consultancy Cadmus Group Inc. found that 14 percent of energy supplied by the grid could be "cost-effectively avoided" through energy efficiency programs.

"Energy efficiency is the cleanest way to meet our power needs," said Howard Learner, president and executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center. "There's a tremendous amount of energy in buildings and people's homes that can help save us money on utility bills and feed our economy."

jwernau@tribune.com










Hope and change assholes.   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39695
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama Coal Regulations to Boost Price of Electricity as Much as 60 Percent by 2014

Mark Whittington, Yahoo! Contributor Network
Jun 12, 2011 "Contribute content like this. Start Here."
MORE:cam newtonObamajohn boehnermacbookBrett Favre
 PrintFlag 6 I like thisPost a comment
COMMENTARY | President Barack Obama, while still a candidate, promised he would bankrupt the coal industry. According to the Chicago Tribune, it looks like this will be a rare promise that Obama will actually keep.

Unfortunately, it will mean sky-rocketing electricity prices for Americans, as much as 60 percent more by

  2014.

The Obama administration intends to slap environmental regulations on coal fired plants that will make many of them impossible to operate. Even those coal plants that will continue to function will only do so at the expense of billions of dollars of upgrades, which of course will be passed along to the consumer.

Obama's plan to bankrupt the coal industry originally depended on cap and trade. Coal fired plants produce more than their share of so-called greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and would have been hit hardest in a cap and trade regime.

However since cap and trade has not been approved by the Congress, the Obama EPA, having taken upon itself the task of regulating the production of carbon dioxide, has decided to go about it with a will, thus furthering the president's goal of destroying the coal industry.

The effects on the price of electricity of the new regulations will be about the same as the effects on the price of gasoline of the administrations restrictions on oil drilling. The president possesses the charming idea that he can change the way the United States generates energy by government fiat. Unfortunately attempting to supplant the market place with central planning always results in economic dislocation that rarely affects the policy makers who institutes the plans to start with.

One suspects that the Congress will try to put a stop to this. Even the Democratic Senate may balk, seeing not only damage to Democratic represented coal states such as West Virginia and Pennsylvania, but electoral disaster in 2012.

If people decide that the only way to restrain a president's desire to destroy and entire industry and increase the price of electricity for their own good will be to replace that president with someone more

  reasonable, that impulse may be unstoppable. Obama has just handed yet another issue to the growing group of Republicans who want his job.


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8139387/obama_coal_regulations_to_boost_price_pg2.html?cat=62







Bump



Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39695
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
June 13, 2011
Crony Capitalism and Obama's Anti-Coal Crusade
By Ed Lasky



________________________ ________________________ ____



Barack Obama has long sought to bankrupt the coal industry. But, Cook County politician that he is and always will be, the relevant question is: who benefits from his plans wreck a major portion of our economy while also boosting electricity prices across America?

A clue: he and his pals from Chicago have incestuous ties to the one company whose prospects will be boosted by Obama's policies.

While Barack Obama has broken many promises he made along the campaign trail to the Oval Office, one promise seems close to whatever heart he may have: to bankrupt the coal industry.

He told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle on January 17, 2008 of his plans:

q/

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It's just that it will bankrupt them.

 

He also promised that under his plans to transform the energy industry "electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket."


While he failed in Congress to pass the cap-and-trade bill that would have been a direct assault on the coal industry (Democrats from coal-mining states, such as Senator Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia joined with Republicans to derail these efforts) and that would have ineluctably led to his goal of sending utility bills soaring, Obama (as is his wont) has used indirect means at his disposal to circumvent Congress and kill off coal.  This is his modus operandi: take steps behind the scenes that the media will not disclose to bully his programs to fruition.

He has used his executive power to seal off vast areas of federal land from coal mining.

But it is primarily through the use of his regulatory empire (the number of federal regulations has skyrocketed under his administration) that he has put a chokehold not only on the coal mining industry but also on utilities that burn coal to generate electricity.  And, incidentally, this will put a chokehold on Americans trying to balance their budgets (of course, Obama doesn't care about balancing budgets -- such a concept is foreign to him; were it so for us).

Lisa Jackson, the head of the EPA, has been her point person in driving this agenda.

Her most recent and dramatic step has been to pass environmental regulations to make coal-fired generating plants that produce about half the nations' electricity, much more expensive to operate.  The Chicago Tribune reports:

 
Consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 60 percent in the next few years.

The reason: Pending environmental regulations will make coal-fired generating plants, which produce about half the nation's electricity, more expensive to operate. Many are expected to be shuttered.

The increases are expected to begin to appear in 2014, and policymakers already are scrambling to find cheap and reliable alternative power sources. If they are unsuccessful, consumers can expect further increases as more expensive forms of generation take on a greater share of the electricity load.

Already, prices for electricity are jumping at a time our economy and consumers can least afford more blows.

But there are also those who would benefit from such plans and they include people and companies quite close to President Obama.

From the Tribune article:
 

One company that expects to benefit from the changes is Chicago-based Exelon Corp., which has a large fleet of nuclear power plants that have low emissions and are cheap to run compared with coal plants.

"The upside to Exelon is unmistakable," CEO John Rowe said last year. "Every $50 per megawatt-day as a change in capacity prices, translates to almost $350 million of additional capacity revenue for Exelon in 2014 and subsequent years."

Rowe said energy prices are also expected to rise if coal plants are retired and replaced with other energy sources, like natural gas. "These changes add up quickly," he said. "A $5 per megawatt-hour increase in energy prices would be $700 million to $800 million of incremental annual revenue to Exelon on an open basis. We expect that at least some of that upside will be realized in the next two to four years."

 


Sadly, the paper -- an early promoter of Barack Obama's career -- does not delve further into who else may reap the rewards at the American people's expense.  What political figures close to Barack Obama have long ties to Exelon?

David Axlerod, Obama's campaign strategist and chief domestic policy adviser (who had the office closest to the Oval one before he left the White House to return to the 2012 campaign trail), has reaped quite a few rewards from doing business with Commonwealth Edison, which  became part of the Exelon octopus through corporate mergers (this corporate history is linked to Rahm Emanuel, see below).

Axelrod's firm, ASK Public Strategies, is the "gold standard in Astroturf organizing" (Astroturf organizations are fake grassroots groups that are actually funded and promoted by corporate interests).

From a Business Week article :


ASK's predilection for operating in the shadows shows up in its work. On behalf of ComEd and Comcast, the firm helped set up front organizations that were listed as sponsors of public-issue ads...

ASK's relationship with ComEd goes back much further: The Chicago-based utility says ASK has been an adviser since at least 2002. ASK's workload picked up in 2005, as the Exelon subsidiary was nearing the end of a 10-year rate freeze and preparing to ask state regulators for higher electricity prices. Based on ASK's advice, ComEd formed Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity (CORE) to win support.

 

CORE (and Com Ed and David Axelrod's ASK) were successful in their efforts to fool people and pressure regulators and politicians into accepting rate hikes.



Now we have Barack Obama, his hand-picked appointees and his cronies pursuing policies that will again boost electricity bills and benefit Com Ed and its corporate parent.  A richer Exelon is a happier client for David Axelrod.  While Barack Obama has angered many in the corporate community, rest assured that dollars will flow from the corporate coffers and officers of Exelon to fund Obama's road to the White House.  History repeats itself as farce.

Who else may benefit from this rape of electricity consumers? There are the legions of investors in green schemes who are Obama supporters and whose uneconomic projects can only succeed through government arm-twisting (an Obama talent).

Then there is Rahm Emanuel, Obama's longtime political ally and his former Chief of Staff who recently became Chicago's mayor.  But between stints in politics he took the revolving door between politics and business and signed up for a very lucrative and brief career in investment banking.  This is the very same revolving door Obama has promised to close. Who was his major client?  Need one ask?  The aforementioned John Rowe, Chief Executive Officer of Exelon.

In a Forbes magazine article from 2009, Rowe boasted of his decade-long planning for more expensive coal. His plans have borne luscious fruit.


Rowe, 64, the longest-serving utility executive in the industry and chief executive of Exelon, the country's most valuable utility by market value, is indeed in the catbird seat. While Exelon and the rest of the utility industry has been battered by a weak economy and suddenly low electricity demand and prices, Exelon has a lot to look forward to. Soon after Rowe created Exelon in 2000 with the merger of the Chicago utility Unicom (parent of Commonwealth Edison) and the Philadelphia utility Peco, he sold off most of the company's coal plants and focused the company on nuclear. He created a generation subsidiary that sells the power produced by 17 reactors, by far the largest nuclear fleet in the nation and the third biggest in the world.

 
This statement (commendable in its brute honesty) is akin to a smoking gun: Exelon is the biggest and most direct beneficiary of Obama's energy policies.  Rowe knows Chicago politics as well as he knows how to run nukes (he has an admirable record in doing so). Whose bread was buttered over the years as Exelon grew ?

 
Exelon has very deep ties to the Obama Administration. Frank M. Clark, who runs ComEd, helped advise Obama before he ran for President and is one of Obama's largest fundraisers. Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, worked as a consultant to Exelon. Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, helped create Exelon. Emanuel was hired by Rowe to help broker the $8.2 billion deal between Unicom and Peco when Emanuel was at the investment bank Wasserstein Perella (now Dresdner Kleinwort). In his two-year career there Emanuel earned $16.2 million, according to congressional disclosures. His biggest deal was the Exelon merger.


For history buffs, Com Ed at one time was headed by Tom Ayers, a power broker par excellence in Chicago.  Ayers was the father of Bill Ayers -- the former Weatherman terrorist who gave birth to Obama's political career and had close Obama ties through Chicago-based activist groups (he was not just "some guy in the neighborhood"  whose kids play with Obama's daughters as Axlerod characterized Bill Ayers; Ayers' children are adults -- what kind of play did they have with Obama's prepubescent daughters? Journalists never asked that question and many others that they should have back in 2008).

Obama learned a great deal from his time spent in the muck of Cook County politics. There is a saying in Chicago that when people seek positions or contracts from Chicago politicians and their bureaucratic puppets they are asked  " Who sent you?"

All too often the answer has been Exelon. But now the question should be asked not in Cook County but by journalist in Washington, D.C. when electricity prices "necessarily skyrocket" across America.

Think about that when you rush to turn off your lights: Obama and his cronies like to keep us in the dark.

Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/06/crony_capitalism_and_obamas_anti-coal_crusade.html at June 13, 2011 - 07:59:39 AM CDT



________________________ ______________________-

And you idiots attack me for calling Obama a communist traitor and sleeper cell all on to himself?   Yeah whatever.  Obama is doing more damage than 50 bin ladens combined could ever dream of.   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39695
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Exxon, U.S. Government Duel Over Huge Oil Find
By RUSSELL GOLD


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903596904576514762275032794.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection



Exxon Mobil Corp. is fighting with the U.S. government to keep control of one of its biggest oil discoveries ever, in a showdown where billions of dollars hang in the balance for both sides.

View Full Image

.The massive Gulf of Mexico discovery contains an estimated one billion barrels of recoverable oil, the company says. The Interior Department, which regulates offshore drilling, says Exxon's leases have expired and the company hasn't met the requirements for an extension. Exxon has sued to retain the leases.

The court battle is playing out at a time in which the Obama administration has made an issue of unused leases, which deprive the Treasury of valuable taxes. It also comes as regulators are being careful not to be seen as lax in their dealings with large energy companies in the wake of last year's BP PLC spill.

The stakes are high: Under federal law, the leases—and all the oil underneath—could revert to the government if Exxon doesn't win in court.

The loss of the leases would be an enormous black eye for Exxon. The company hadn't previously disclosed the size of the discovery in what is called the Julia field until it was mentioned in the suit Exxon filed against the Interior Department last week in federal court in Lake Charles, La.

The Texas behemoth faces the sobering prospect that it may have made the largest discovery ever in the Gulf of Mexico only to lose it. Tens of billions of dollars of oil could slip through its hands because it failed to follow federal rules for getting a lease extension while it moved forward with plans to get the oil out of the ground.

Exxon spokesman Patrick McGinn said the company expected to get the extension, which he said was traditionally granted as a matter of course. "You state your case and you got it. [This] was unexpected."

This high-stakes standoff is likely to spark a political, as well as legal, showdown between the federal government and the nation's largest oil company. It has also roped in Norway's Statoil ASA, which owns 50% of the Julia find. Statoil said it filed its own suit Monday in the same Louisiana federal court against the Interior Department to preserve the leases. Exxon is the field's operator and lease holder.

A spokeswoman for the Interior Department said, "Our priority remains the safe development of the nation's offshore energy resources, which is why we continue to approve extensions that meet regulatory standards."

The Interior Department, which oversees offshore oil development and collects royalties, has been trying to show that it has become a tougher, but still fair, regulator of the Gulf of Mexico's oil riches. Its reputation was battered during the massive Deepwater Horizon well blowout and oil spill last year, when BP sought—and the government approved—last-minute changes to the well design, which some investigators say contributed to a chaotic environment aboard the drilling rig. The government was roundly criticized for weak oversight of safety rules.

Now the department must decide whether to fight Exxon in court or settle and allow it to develop the oil. Turning the leases over to another company would mean further delays to the tax royalties that would go to government coffers. At current prices, potential royalties paid to the government over the lifetime of a one billion-barrel field would be about $10.95 billion.

The oil industry, led vocally by Exxon, has said that developing oil fields in the deepest reaches of the Gulf takes time to do safely. And by threatening to take away a massive discovery, the industry says that the government is sending the message that oil companies need to be in a rush to produce.

The possibility that Exxon could lose this oil will likely send shock waves through the industry. "This is unprecedented," said Amy Myers Jaffe, associate director of the Energy Program at Rice University in Houston. "The question is: Do our offshore rules allow for flexibility? You don't want to let companies sit on a discovery…We definitely don't want to send the industry a message that you need to be in a rush or we'll take the oil away from you."

Exxon's lawsuit said the government has granted "thousands" of extensions over time. It said the government's denial of its extension relied on legal interpretations that it "had never before applied and had never before articulated." Statoil asserted in its lawsuit that no request for an extension for a deep-water development "had ever previously been denied." The Interior Department couldn't comment on this.

The Exxon discovery is believed to be the largest in the Gulf of Mexico since BP found the Thunder Horse Field in 1999, and it could be larger. The find also cements the Gulf of Mexico as a rich exploration area with large amounts of undiscovered oil that may keep oil companies active for years to come.

"This is very deep water, very complex structures and difficult-to-produce oil," said Exxon's Mr. McGinn.

The dispute over Exxon's plans for the Julia field began in October 2008—about a month before its 10-year leases expired—when it applied for a five-year "suspension of production."

Such extensions are "fairly common," said Elmer P. Danenberger III, a former federal official who oversaw U.S. offshore-drilling rules until he retired in 2009.

"I can honestly say that people who manage that program are really strict, which they need to be or it will be abused. If you don't have a commercial discovery and a plan for moving ahead at the end of the lease term…that's it."

In February 2009, the government denied Exxon's request for an extension and after a brief appeal denied it again that April. Exxon said in a letter at the time that it was "committed" to producing the oil, but the government said it didn't present a specific plan. The government contended this didn't meet legal requirements and denied the application.

More appeals followed, but Exxon lost its final appeal in May. The final decision hinged on whether Exxon had a concrete "commitment" to produce the oil in December 2008, when its lease expired. The director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals at the Interior Department ruled that it didn't.

Exxon is known in the industry for moving slowly and studying all options exhaustively before committing billions of dollars. But even if it loses this court case, all might not be lost. The Julia field consists of five leases—or square blocks in the Gulf of Mexico—and only three are being disputed. The other two aren't set to expire until 2013.

—Deborah Solomon

and Angel Gonzalez contributed to this article.
Write to Russell Gold at russell.gold@wsj.com


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39695
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

EPA's Looming Blackouts
IBD Editorials ^ | August 22, 2011 | Staff
Posted on August 22, 2011 7:53:03 PM EDT by Kaslin

Energy: It won't matter which light bulbs we use as the administration's implementation of cross-state pollution rules shuts down coal plants across the country. Where will the jobs be when the lights go out?

It's called the Cross-State Pollution Rule, announced last month, and its implementation over the next 18 months will likely result in the loss of a fifth of the nation's electricity-generating capacity.

The result will be likely power shortages, skyrocketing rates and inevitable brownouts and rolling blackouts.

Based on Bush-era EPA proposals that the federal courts threw out in 2008, this latest example of legislation is designed to usurp state powers to regulate their in-state emissions by making it a federal issue on the grounds pollution crosses state lines.

The rule requires coal companies in 27 states to slash emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide by 73% and 54%, respectively, from 2005 levels by 2014. "Just because wind and weather will carry air pollution away from its source at a local power plant doesn't mean that pollution is no longer that plant's responsibility," says Environmental Protection Agency Chief Lisa Jackson.

The targets are states such as Texas that not only resist federal encroachment on their powers but dare to try to balance environmental quality. The EPA claims huge health gains as its justification, but those claims are in doubt. Poverty and joblessness, which this and other EPA rules will create, carry their own health risks.

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...

xpac2

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Getbig!
You know that noone reads or cares about the articles you copy and paste right?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39695
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Whatever.  Stay ignorant.

xpac2

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Getbig!
Whatever.  Stay ignorant.

I got more important things to do in my life then care about shit that dont matter..like getting laid

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39695
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
I'm sure jersey shore and american idol are far more importabt to you than the collapse of the nation. 

Seems par for the course most obamabots.

xpac2

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Getbig!
I'm sure jersey shore and american idol are far more importabt to you than the collapse of the nation. 

Seems par for the course most obamabots.

HAHAHAHA Who talks like that?? U must be popular at party's  ::)